SrPx
-
Posts
2,866 -
Joined
Posts posted by SrPx
-
-
...Also, try to disabling all snapping functions, just in case (the magnet icon).
-
Yep... I'm familiar with those, the straight lines (where there should be a continued curve) happened before, in previous versions (not anymore) of Affinity desktop. It was indeed common at some point of elder versions. I have not seen that since a relatively old update of 1.x, though (on desktop).
[ There might be a bug... I just like to discard everything else, first. As if it is anything else, it would have a fast solution. ]
But that's why I also recommended setting higher spacing value. You said it did not improve... Did you try with a very wild value, like 25% (instead of the usual 5% or 6%). Kind of to see if it's a problem of performance, or is it something else. I'm just trying to eliminate factors or hunt down why is it not able to catch up. It might even be that you are drawing the circles at an insane speed, but I doubt that... (I have noticed some old Huion and XP-Pen pen tablets/displays had issues in making fast circles, not the case with Wacom (I have Huion and Wacom devices).
"I've tried 2723x2048px @264DPI. It's not as bad as 1920x1080px @300DPI" I don't know what would be your take with a result like this, but this is what I find most shocking. It's more pixels, more information to catch up... And yet it's working better in the one with more pixels. Still, the way we are talking about it does not make much sense (the DPI without referring to a physical size, in measures, of the document).
The DPI (probably should say ppi) is only a way of dealing with print outputs. But really all we should care is about total pixel dimensions. As later on in Photo, or on desktop in any raster package (Photo, PS, PSP, Gimp, etc), you can take that pixel information and export in a format that supports a specific dpi for print. We just need to know previously the pixels needed for a print of X inches or centimeters, and Y dpi (and color profile and etc, of course). So, if you make that calculation to guess the needed total pixels, you're good to go and work in 75dpi. For example, that it has to be a canvas of 6500x4500 pixels (just an example), then I would try to work with that and 75 DPI. The reason is because the dpi value might be messing up internally things, some bug, something. And you don't need the setting, at all. The screen always works at retina PPI (which is really high), so, no need to worry about it, we only need to work with the total pixel dimensions required for the size in cms (ie 21x27 cms) and planned DPI (ie: 300dpi) for the final print output (if is it to be printed, if not, the dpi wouldn't matter/make no sense). That's it. Hence the needed initial calculation, any image/size/resample dialog allows that automatic calculation, also in Photo-desktop.
So, by just working on the needed actual pixels (ie, 6000x3500 or whatever) and 75dpi, we would get to know if is it the "DPI number" what is causing some conflict to the app, not the actual memory size of the file, brushes settings or anything (eliminating factors). And you can definitely work with same level of detail, just in the actual pixels amount needed but "setting it as 75 dpi", to confirm if the software has no struggle this way. That's what I'd do, definitely, in this scenario. And if it works, I'd work so until a fix comes.In the meantime it gets examined (as the team is aware), I would first try what I suggested above, and if it does not work, well, in case it helps you, and I don't know how much of it can translate to iPad, but at least on desktop versions, this is what I learned through the years painting with Affinity Photo:
- Accumulation + Flow left as being affected both by the pen's pressure sensitivity do produce lag in certain cases (quite often). So, I leave only flow affected by pressure, as anyway, it's what I care about for a painterly feel (it makes also things more controllable for me) and in my experience tends to help with better blending.
- The "spacing" value can affect HUGELY the brush performance (not only in Affinity apps).
- Strangely enough, hardness (a bit slower if "too soft") does accept performance. But IMO quite more slightly than any of the previous in this list. I've had no problems at all for a while with things like a 900 px brush on a 5.000x5000 px canvas, with any hardness value, but that might be because a) desktop version with many cores and a lot of RAM b) if things are now much more GPU accelerated in Affinity, my nvidia 3060 might be helping a lot, there, while in the iPad is just graphics integrated in the CPU (I know, this gives no problems in other apps).
- Size affected by pressure, surprisingly, not really or not too much: I can have it and flow both affected by the pen pressure, and work comfortably unless using huge brushes and/or really large canvases.
- In general, I simplify brushes, and I don't set anything else affected by pressure other than flow and/or size.
- Unrelated to iPad, but Windows INK and Open CL acceleration have typically affected badly, in my experience (some iOS feature could affect, who knows).
- Smoothing/line stabilizer affects the natural brush response, for obvious reasons.
- "Wet edges" used to add quite some lag to my brushes (not sure if in newer versions, as it has been a while since I used that or left that checked in the top bar(I always disable it)).
- Having other apps working at the same time, even if just "not closed" (in the background), could affect dramatically painting experience, so I am sure to "close all" before getting into a painting session.
- For the same reason, other utilities, but system based, I keep that to a bare minimum while drawing or painting.
- How you set Affinity's preferences, specially the areas "performance", "tools" and "interface" are absolutely vital for fluid painting, at least on desktop, again, I know the iPad version is way different, I've never seen their preferences screens, even. But on the desktop I do need to disable Open CL, enable my GPU as renderer (I guess here would be Metal, the thing that relates with the part dealing with graphics on the iPad, and never leaving there "WARP" (software renderer)). Never setting "Windows Ink" (it produces instability on my end, and performance problems for painting), but "High Precision" instead. Assigning enough RAM in preferences (I assign more than it comes by default, but I am never using other app while painting), and reducing a lot the number of UNDOs in that preference screen (I only had 20 in previous apps to Affinity, so here I set something like 30 to 70 undos, not the big number that comes by default, but that's me). But maybe nothing of this exists on the iPad.
-
Which are the native DPIs of retina (I really mean ppi, as the other thing does not make sense (dots is for printing), but you know), of the iPad Pro? Maybe it needs to be at those same DPI to not get extra processing to "translate" to such dpi, to not get the hiccup with the pen? As it's what only makes sense to me if suddenly at 1200 dpi it goes smoother than at 300 dpi. The dpi are only a kind of a "hack" to speak about printing resolution (it's easy to get things confused when talking about it, happens to me).
PD: What I am reading the following about the iPad pro diplay: "2732-by-2048-pixel resolution at 264 pixels per inch (ppi)" (<--12.9 iPad Pro specs. The 11" one are a bit different)
What happens if you paint on a document that you create NEW with both those exact pixels and exact same ppi ? Does it still make the bad thing ?
-
I have no idea about beta features. But in many apps autoclose produces this effect (but you don't seem to be using a beta version?). In other software, it is just that the starting pen recognition is having issues, so, a initial delay is provoking a initial straight line due to not "catching up" due to that initial extra processing or hardware/OS issue (or the app's fault). Or in others, it's just that there's some brush lag.
An iPad Pro has I think like 16 GB in the best case scenario (and I guess, a lot of that is used by the OS an etc) or 8, depending on the version, and shared memory for CPU and "GPU"... I mean, it has not much memory (not sure if enough free disk is also an issue, like in desktops). So, big canvases could affect the brush performance, at the start of the stroke or all the time. One thing, though. If one works with a 1080x1920px canvas, if one is willing to keep the same size, and I mean, the document physical size (IE, for print) would have to be reduced (in centimeters or inches, etc) when going from 75dpi to 300dpi, to keep it as a 1080x1920px canvas. Unless we add pixels (and so, make it heavier to process) , if what we are really doing is resizing it so that, for example, an A4 document (around 29.7 cms tall) to still be 29.7 cms tall, but now at 300 dpi, instead of 75 we are then needing the document to have a lot more pixels, we are increasing it in pixels dimensions. -
I have never used the iPad version... You have all Affinity's magnetic snapping features off, right ? (and the assistant off)
I am also extremely unfamiliar with iPads, the iPad Pro and the Pencil technology. But.. is there a chance that (like in my Samsung S7 FE) there's some extra configuration that can come by default (or which one can set up) regarding the pen?Like the S-Pen special features and "behaviors". I am thinking of some sort of behavior you can check ON or OFF in general iOS settings relating to the Pencil. Like some "auto-connect" (when the end of the line is close to the start, as if to close a shape) magnetic feature or a special mode the Pencil can be in. In Windows, the similar thing to that is Windows INK, and in Samsung's S and its S-Pen, there's a ton of things that are best left disabled.Or.. that the code in the iPad version of Affinity is somehow interacting with one of those features. But... it is the first time I hear of this with Affinity (might be just me), so, it could very well be a particular configuration. Can you check on that?
Edit: Oh, wait... I will leave all the above written (as it could also affect). But Now I read it better... it is when you "start" (not when you are finishing the shape) that the straight line happens... As it is having a hard time for detecting the initial thing or trying to guess in what mode it is starting or something... This can also be affected by some extra feature on iOS, I suppose. I would play with the Pencil's iOS settings, as I mentioned, disabling and enabling those iOS settings, on and off, one by one, to see if one of those is the culprit or that interacts badly with Affinity's apps. Even could be some feature related with palm rejection/detection. I'd try everything even if remotely related.
-
Does it happen when it is not a circle? I mean, if you make a similarly fast stroke, but not closed, that the finish point does not get close to the starting point? For example, a wave or a fast "S".
-
I think you still make the GPU work (nvidia GPUs, I am not sure about what happens with AMD GPUs, there were some long threads about it: issues with AMD drivers, I think) , as long as you set your GPU in "Renderer" (settings->performance), and not WARP (which would be actually rendering by software, only). Solely deactivating Open CL, as far as I know, only just does not make use of the Open CL optimizations, but in my experience, at least in brush operations (painting, mostly) not only does not affect, it invariably works much better with OpenCL off. My r9 CPU has 12c/24 threads, I guess that's good for Affinity, but I am pretty sure it works noticeably better since I swapped the old GTX 1650 GPU with a RTX 3060.
-
That's the brush spacing setting. I'm almost sure.
With the smudge tool, you still can choose (and modify) the brush on the Brush list panel (you can smudge with any kind of brush). For example, you can double click in a basic round smooth brush, and a window will pop up where you can establish the settings. Just remember that those changes stay (unlike just changing those in the top bar). So, remember that you did so for the next time that you use that brush for any other purpose. Or, duplicate it and create so one specific for this purpose, whatever preferred.
I am almost 100% sure that this is happening to you because the brush selected is one that by default has like 25% or so set as value in "SPACING", in that specific brush settings.
Just change it to something like 5% (1% for super smooth, but it can lag, then, specially with big brushes) in spacing, and you should be fine. Smudge brushes could lag in sizes like 230px or so, anyway, but can still be functional for the purpose.
I would recommend to also try and do it in several passes with the smudge brush, over the already "smudged" trace, like "insisting", it allows more finesse and curious effects. But it depends on what are you after.
Also, for this kind of stuff I would work on a RGB/16 bits per channel kind of file. Not in the usual RGB/8 bits. You have a lot of more room for gradients and this kind of effect. I suppose that's the case even more with RGB/32 bits, but I have not experimented much with those in Photo (just made a fast test now and seems a lot better), just because I'm completely fine already in 16bits per channel.
It's always way more "room" for editing. But... it can make files processing slower, be aware of that, when performance is too tight. I paint (drawing, painting, not photo retouch) in other apps that only support 8bits per channel (CSP for example), and for painting is totally fine, but for image editing, you have more "room" in several types of edits when the software (like Affinity Photo does) allows 16bits or 32bits per channel, not only editing related to smooth gradients, smudging or subtle shadows, but many more matters. But files are bigger, heavier to process, etc, so, thread carefully.
Pls, let me know if that (the brush spacing setting) solves I, am curious.
(it solves it here, in a fast test I just made. I'm on desktop, though, Windows).
-
Still... Trust me on this.. there have been so many reports about this... I have two machines, and the openCL ON makes things worse in two very different computers and systems (a Ryzen 3900X desktop and an intel 12th (12700H) gen laptop, Windows 10 and Windows 11). In my tests with both, not only I don't lose performance by deactivating that (but leaving my GPU configured in Affinity! , of course, never the software renderer); indeed it performs better without it, and the lag disappears once deactivating.. in both computers. Too much of a coincidence (again.. there have been many reports). But if you have it all good, okay. Just remember you have it on in case you notice some lag or some other issue, to immediately deactivate it, restart, and see how it goes.
-
Super wild idea, but one never knows... What happens if you change the brush spacing settings? Like, if it's at a 6%, trying increasingly bigger percentages (not needing to reach the point of seeing the "pattern"). I have it on 5% and goes well with everything, but on desktop... ipad version might be different. It used to happen in much older desktop versions, so, who knows. Like when there's too many dynamics on, or spacing % is too small (when doing enough of that, still happens on desktop, if one goes crazy), it did have issues to "catch up". It is all good on desktop, now, though. All this as I am supposing it is a "not catching up" problem, but who knows if in the ipad it's trying to magnetically close the circle or something (I don't think so, that's even a wilder idea).
-
I would try disabling "Enable Open CL acceleration", as I can see it is checked, in the video... It (any brush) goes perfect for me (in Photo), there must be something different (and I definitely have that disabled; when I activate it, the brushes start lagging. Don't worry, it still will use your GPU). The other thing different is that you have BOTH flow and accumulation varying by pressure (is there a reason for that?) I usually have only one value varied by pressure: flow, as is what gives the painterly build-up. For my brushes more dedicated to digital painting, I indeed set only flow as varying by pressure (as I change size constantly with wacom's ring). But for others, I set flow and size (a little bit only, in the case of size). Maybe that could be affecting too. But IMO the major red flag is the open CL thing activated. I would even restart Photo (exit and start it again, I mean) after you change that, to be sure.
Here brushes go blazing fast. Maybe is the PC, the hardware, memory, GPU or CPU. Mine is a Ryzen 9 3900X, 32GB RAM, and a nvidia 3060 12 GB VRAM. I even save the files in an old HDD, and photo is on it, too (my Windows runs on a fast m.2 SDD, though).
What size is that canvas ? (in a very huge canvas that could happen, and many other operations).
Have you checked the Windows Task Manager (ctrl + shift + ESC ) to see that no other app or tsr, process, is somehow consuming many resources? (sometimes happens).
But my strongest suspicion is the Open CL not being disabled. As I had that problem with even different configs and different PCs. -
On 4/21/2024 at 5:41 AM, debraspicher said:
I do use Inkscape for some things, especially Trace Bitmap, which works really well for converting delicate ink jobs.
SpoilerDefinitely, it does, specially if the art was digitally made or scanned at very high resolution (well, like happens with any automatic tracer). I don't think commercial versions are much better (I have found some to be quite worse). High res files + certain settings, and it does a perfect job (the Potrace open source tool's magic, I guess). But there are a few more advantages with Inkscape. The calligraphy tool is basically their inking brush (apparently created with quite some focus on manual lettering). With certain settings, I can feel it even more responsive than I remember Illustrator's (but the Adobe app has too many advantages in that department, when known deeply). Among the "competitors" (included A.Designer), Inkscape has the most wysiwyg manual inking tool: the strokes are laid responding to what I am drawing, in the way that I am doing it. But with certain settings. Again, the not so intuitive approach. It has many settings (this is good, in my book) to control it, which surprised me back in the day: besides pressure sensitivity, which works really well once adjusted the curves in the Wacom (or etc) driver panel configuration for this app (if one makes it), you have many more settings. Mass -supposedly the weight of the inking brush, but really it's a fancy name for stabilization/smoothing- which for regular use, 2 is the exact right number, it seems, angle (30), fixation(0) (these two settings are there in case one wants to get a tilted effect like for certain calligraphy styles, fonts. By setting myself those numbers I eliminate the effect. It's tilted by default! not useful for many users), "thinning", which makes the effect (on top of pressure sensitivity) of when the ink gets lower due to a fast stroke (even if you go slow, so, better control), but more ink at the starting point and the ending one, or the opposite, making it thicker at the middle of the stroke, then thinner. I set it to 0, as I want pen's pressure to fully control all that, but surely interesting to mimic some real ink effects, together with tremor. This "Tremor" thing (if that's the word; I see all the UI in Spanish) simulates the "imperfections" of ink, in certain values it becomes quite realistic. Again, I set it to zero for my less fancy inking gigs. But I read the other day in a thread here in beta forums how someone was missing that from Illustrator. "Wiggle", like "mass" is about how you control the brush, not the stroke/line appearance. I set wiggle to zero, too. I mean, in case you get more curious about it, those settings do it for me. I described it all as initially the inking (calligraphy) tool did not seem useful to me, had to mess with every single setting till I got that level of perfect control (YMMV, as tablets brands differ a lot, Wacom's work quite different than Huion's and XP-Pen's).
They also have the gradient mesh, which can be a time saver (I think we don't, in Affinity, but I have not followed the betas' progress -not a tester since a while-
, lately), and a spiral primitive, which (besides it can be done manually (on paper, with a compass) and digitally, but that's slow)... yes, we do have it since recently, but for the rare eventual project, I used to resort to making it in Inkscape, and then copy pasting the nodes or svg exporting to finish in Affinity. Like with many FOSS apps, the development is driven through passion and personal interest, so they tend to have interesting features, while in some cases there are lacks for commercial industry standards (years in Gimp denying the need of CMYK, even in the FAQs and manuals, but now they are full on adding it for 3.0, and Inkscape team has been working on that for a while). Still super useful tools, though.
[ BTW, about something said earlier.. donations go a long way in helping open source. You could think that if they are stubborn about some ideas... like my (and many others) frequent (kind) petition during some decades for CMYK in these two tools, and IK for bones (and many other things I used to have in 3DS Max/Maya) in Blender, then, they wouldn't change their ideas easily, as they used to get this attitude of "fighting against the industry standards". But since recently, this way of doing has changed very drastically, and also, when the sum of donations is big enough, they organize Google Summer of Code projects, and similar stuff, and those tend to be done by great minds that come from outside and actually noticed the lack in the app. Often people who has ended college (Computer Science) and some are quite capable, plus they tend to hyper focus on that feature or improvement. I donate when I can... All that goes also to help many users in countries where people can't afford any of the commercial apps from the first world. ]Edit: I just hid a wall of text above (still there, but people would have to click it), as was not very on-topic; mostly I was talking about some nice things/tricks/uses I found in Inkscape, replying to Debraspicher about the matter.
My usual take can come as weird, but I got these (bad?) habits of working with any number of tools in a project while in the game jobs. In the morning I'd be constantly switching between Max, Maya, the UV mapping tool, and like 2 or 3 worse than pre-alpha tools (now... those redefined for me the concept of "fest of bugs", geez. But I got used to it) coded by our programmers to integrate stuff in the engine, or engine editors, etc, and maybe in the afternoons, evening, night(some times till crazy hours) PS for the textures while alt tabbing with a 3D painting tool, pixel art for a mobile version, etc... So, in the end, I see it just as a bunch of pixels, vectors, or polygons that I move around, like in a cheapo tour around Europe. Caring only about the final result. One of the reasons I don't worry much about the Canva thing. I fully understand the small business owner with employees. But I would like to think that even in that case, you could do as I've seen done at some companies I've worked at. They would even lock down (to any exterior contact
) machines with an OS 20 years old, and similarly old software, to ensure the workflows were kept intact, and to avoid new investments in software (back in the day software was a lot more expensive, they would have paid Affinity's licenses yearly, and very happily). They could do that with 2.4 or 2.5 (or etc), if the worst happens (while I don't think it will). Even the more pessimistic assume that a v3 would happen, that's maybe some time ahead of updates and "normal" use. After that, the (small companies') teams with employees could do that "conservative" approach that I mention. I dunno, in my experience, things needed for the job in 2D, DTP, etc, are usually the same for almost decades. Hence why many people and companies could just stick to CS6 and even earlier, for so long.
-
7 hours ago, debraspicher said:
Vectorstyler which is built by one man and it's amazing to me how much manipulation is feasible with just that one program
No PDF/X export (not a single version... and before getting quoted, I know, it's said to be coming before 1.3...but IMO, that's a major feature for pro work, should be there already) which a lot of us need for almost every gig/project for serious print output. And having tried it, I have found bugs (and some strange workflows) even in the very first fast try (confirmed later several times). Still, amazing software, with many features for inkers (I'm kind of one), and it is very much worth the bucks (I'm a 'software collector', so it is not "this instead of", but "and"... still haven't bought it, though, that lack was too important). So, a great software with certain lacks and bugs, just like I would define A. Designer (I like more Affinity Photo, but that's me) or how I would also describe Xara Designer Pro. Too many years since I used Corel D. for work, though, and the permanent license price is out of question, with the current competition. I don't see many advantages (no real winner among all these, imo. Corel, maybe) in one versus the other or the other one, except when/if needing certain workflow or feature for a project or bunch of projects, as to decide one certain route or another. But in that, I find a lot more useful what Inkscape has to offer me, currently. It's in many of my workflows, indeed, working together with Designer, as fast as copy-pasting nodes! (or exporting, etc) and since a very long while. Indeed, would it (Inskcape) have proper (full) CMYK handling and professional PDF/X export, and some other things fixed, and I'd use it a lot more, almost as my main one for vectors. I successfully do the workflow Inkscape-> Scribus-> PDF/X (just as a curiosity, as I don't need it. And always great to get extra ways, that's my motto), which, btw, besides PDF/X-3 and PDF/X-4, includes the arcane but yet strictly required by some companies PDF/X-1a:2001 (happily, seems Ingram now accepts PDF/X-3:2002 as well) , but I recon the workflow is not yet full newcomer friendly, I needed to solve/guess a number of issues. And I have zero probs with uncommon or hard UIs ...I'd say right now it's more uncommon than hard (just like with Blender).
Outside Adobe, I think there's always going to be some kind of trade for no subscription, no monopoly. But yep, those problems in Designer do need to be fixed (and adding the option for "practical" zero smoothing -well, it's always an average, anyway- while drawing with brushes, etc). I suspect that a lot of that will come, step by step.
- JGD and debraspicher
-
2
-
4 minutes ago, William Overington said:
If so, my vote is that you put it back please.
oki, will do so, as I too hate it when I can't finish reading something... (maybe I'll remove it again tomorrow or so, then)
Yep, I often make a local copy of what I wrote before I delete it, mostly if there's some conclusion I want to keep for myself or sth.
- Alfred, JGD and William Overington
-
3
-
13 hours ago, Aurea Ratio said:
I need serious customers
Okay, I removed my (too long) post. Might remove many others, as well. (but, yep am pro, several fields...)
-
Not even in 2D, be it web, print/corporate image, game graphic work, film, etc. Despite having lots of indy studios working with other software (Affinity and many more), the very high end, large firms, etc, it's pretty much Adobe (like Autodesk, Houdini, custom solutions in 3D/animation) territory. Despite being a fact that you can do a lot of high end work with Affinity (as you can with Blender in 3D, but until film companies start doing large productions using Blender, that area of the field is exclusive of certain tools. The technical capability of the tool is only part of the equation). I think Canva is well aware of the current market for Affinity. And IMO, they might want to add new niches or increase/evolve some. As for knowing about Canva (I'm talking about several comments, not just this quoted text) I very well knew about its existence since very long ago. When working with small business owners, and not only having them as clients, also watching and reading material related to marketing, business matters, etc, Canva is everywhere. Tons of times I have handled stuff for some step needed in these users and companies' Canva based workflows, or added/fixed stuff which they started there. It quite makes sense the addition, to empower and help it grow (so, the opposite future of what some predict), from what I have been seeing for a long time with Canva's users. I think they want to expand to a bit higher niche than their current, and compete there, or that their current users are increasingly needing more functionality. Or maybe both.
Whether more or less integrated in Canva itself, that would be hard to know, right now. But that they really want that level of functionality and nuanced work, for me that's plain clear.
About competing with Adobe... I said it earlier. I doubt any of the alternatives (including Affinity) is realistically hoping to dethrone any time soon the king of the industry (industries) in decades-long pipelines and ways of working which got established through decades in companies of all sizes, custom plugins, familiarity of high end firms and clients, etc. It is a huge ecosystem that, even if it wouldn't upgrade (but it upgrades, a lot, and very fast, I keep up to date with that, even if just a bit, enough to realize it), it would be extremely hard (or impossible) to be really threatened in the high and mid-high end (but... companies. Some freelancers are in my book very "high end", and I know a few that already moved fully or partially to Affinity). At least for some time. Honestly, though, Corel Draw and Xara have been strong competitors in certain areas many years before Affinity appeared, and are still alive, though slightly niche, not a serious worry for Adobe. But they have quite a chunk of users over the world. The same happens with specific apps for certain functionality, which are even better suited than Adobe's for certain activities, (specialized tools, I call them) but this did not put Adobe in danger, either, as a whole. Monopolistic players (monopolies are always bad for us) usually only have themselves as a threat, or regulation/governments, if anything. But Adobe is doing pretty well.
Long plans can be ambitious, though (till some point, being realistic), the free for schools and non profits thing is really smart. If it is a strategy. If it is not, kudos for the gesture, anyway... that is similar to how Adobe and Autodesk made most of their huge user base. Not them directly, but it was already so common in many graphic workers' machines (in "that type of license", I don't condone it), even at companies, and I have seen huge industry standard apps and companies fall before (often due to their "way of the dodo" behavior more than by competitors' actions...ie, Mirai disappeared by its own). Like I never saw coming XSI would stop being the leader or a very key tool for the film industry, and it happened. Autodesk ended up "acquiring to eliminate" it, and so it happened (there was a serious overlap!! Maya and XSI, and 3D Studio till some extent), but people feared the same with Maya when this happened, as it was also acquired by Autodesk, too, while the same company acted very differently with Maya. This software had a huge users/companies base, was much a better tool for character animation than 3D Studio (although, 3DS was good for that with certain addons), had a solid foot in plugins, scripts, pipelines in animation (games and film) based companies, heavily production tested... and so, all this made no sense to kill it after acquired, so it kept strong and updated, despite all the dark predictions. There were also bad predictions with the buyout of Youtube by Google, back in the day (2006, if I remember well... 18 years ago....). More even the case as Youtube was losing money (btw, Twitch was acquired by Amazon, and it was also losing money. Did not kill it and still is the main game streaming platform), due to Youtube's servers costs in video and stuff, it was a non profitable company!. And that seems to have worked out darn well (in terms of numbers, or in convenience for Google), currently is the second search engine in the world, and many marketers think of it as the the best tool for promotion. Some of us had thought it would just close their offices, be done and that services similar to Vimeo would take over, as Youtube costs are immense. 18 years ago, though....
So, it's a mixed bag, not always in one direction. I dunno, people is free to think whatever, but I always think about if the buying company has an actual something that is really competing with the acquired product/service (and so, 'acquires to annihilate' ), or if, quite the opposite, needs badly what the acquired company has. Google knew that the future of content and promotion was in video, and Autodesk had no interest in killing the best (some would say that this was indeed XSI, though... I had the Foundation version. At least way less intuitive than Maya, in the UI, for new users) character animation tool available and so, lose all that business.
But higher end is super hard to compete with, IMO. The way I see it though, many bosses that I had, small business clients, marketing departments, etc, have a very hard time trying to navigate through Illustrator and Photoshop UIs, while for them Canva is intuitive from the start (one of the main advantages of Affinity is also good UI), and they keep using it. That very low end (but massive! BTW, wasn't the number mentioned 175 million, not 100, neither 75?) market is where they have an enormous chunk of users, and I guess Adobe is not particularly happy about it. I am not saying that's a good or bad thing, but it is a fact, to me.
[ About the "professional" thingy, well, at least in art, I have a Fine Arts degree, and besides I really learned painting much before going to college (almost free in my country), and a lot of people finishing those studies can't really draw or paint (sad, but it's that way), as it depends on certain level of personal effort and compromise, mostly, than in any academic studies (you can learn the same on your own! even if harder) and in a way you could say comparable to a master in the US, the fact is that I never considered that this made me a professional in any way. I think a professional is a person able to both solve the problems and do the activity required for an specific profile at a company or to cover a market niche successfully (if working by your own as a business owner or freelancer, etc). Also, a person that has the skills and training (by your own, with courses, or college) needed for what the job profile requires, and who has a background (knowledge and technical capabilities) good enough to adapt to any situation in that field. These skills are most likely coming from a mix of personal study and practice, and the actual professional experience. Still, in many jobs in programming, academic titles are required to even get to the interview, but IMO there's always a place for the individuals who are serious about their job, and good at it, with or without college studies. If not in one company, it's in another]
About the main issue, I think a) there are other alternatives, but in terms of export for professional work, stability (yep, some of the competitors, which are very few in doing all what A. does, are a bit of a fest of bugs and lacking key features) and feature set, many of them are still behind what Affinity has. A very small few are in very good shape, though, but for a lot of the Affinity user base, price counts quite. I have paid even 2.5k for a software license decades ago, but these days people even doubt it when it is 300 - 800 $. The other alternatives and FOSS could be used, though, if Affinity ceased to exist (I mean, I certainly would use them). b) the possibility of Canva wanting Affinity to get a medium user ground is very likely, hence not much sense in putting all that money to not use what you just bought. They have absolutely nothing to have that functionality. And yep, I agree with those that think they will make it (even as an standalone suite of apps) highly connected with the cloud. I do not think they will trash the permanent buy possibility, as neither did Celsys, which keeps releasing a very nice ClipStudio full version once a year, for those willing to update it (I did, while I really did not need it, but it's affordable. Still, I like to have the freedom to decide not doing it).
Affinity's presence now as an "alternative" on internet articles, forums, reddit, etc, is huge (as Canva's. IMO, some people here did not know about Canva because we are immersed in our bubble of usage, and rarely need to go outside that, it is happening also a bit with social media) and mainly the whole user base is about the permanent purchase option. So, I don't see Canva going against that, it would not be wise from a business perspective, if it would mean losing 2.5 (random number) of the 3 millions users, and surely all the marketing that made Affinity big, once they'd make such thing. So, nah, I don't think they will.
-
On 5/24/2023 at 9:32 AM, postmadesign said:
2. Set smoothing factor: I would like the ability to set the accuracy of the stroke I draw, from very raw input with a lot of accuracy to a more smoothed out line.
3. Related to the previous point is the problem I have with zooming and pencil accuracy. The more zoomed out you are, the less accurate/more smoothed out the path becomes. I wish for a general smoothness regardless of zoom level.
I really, very much agree with the need in Designer of being able to get a stroke, a line, in very raw input (~ish). Like we get in raster (Photo). Indeed, the strange thing is that while you are drawing the line, it stays accurate, the problem is when you lift the tip and it makes the huge "smoothing", even with the stabilizer completely deactivated (it is a very old issue from the very early times of Designer, I remember reporting it with pics). I would have assumed this is impossible in any vector software (unlike in raster graphics software) but I have experienced full accuracy in tools like Inkscape, Illustrator (since many years) and some other. The majority of apps have this kind of excessive "smoothing" (even the current Xara Designer Pro has about the worst of the entire market (quite worse than this), despite being so good for other things).
I can draw lines without stabilizer in any software now (got me years to get an almost equal level to how I'd ink on paper...well, it's yet very different, but workable) provided I am using a Wacom device (some others have hardware line wobble). But I know it is very good to have the stabilizer feature for some situations in inking, it can speed (fast) work that is OK to ink with some of that help. The stabilizer feature works well, the problem is not in it, but in how the brush works even without it. With it on, it fixes the most extreme bad effects, but eliminates the possibility of truly good inking, and worse, it makes it almost impossible to draw small features with complex details (while seeing the full canvas, zoomed out). Plus, some sort of smoothing keeps happening, even in very high levels of stabilizer (in a full zoomed out composition, which is ideal in many moments of the process). Reason why I suspect that the problem is in the basic stuff underneath, not something the stabilizer can fully fix.
But as an example of usability, in A. Photo I can totally ink accurately, now in 2.4.2.
And I very well remember reporting the (considerable) staircase issue (now fixed) while inking zoomed out in Photo, the lag issues, and some jitter. And at least with certain configuration in preferences (this is important in any Affinity app), it seems all those got solved, reason why I am hopeful about getting a similar level of quality with freehand inking in Designer (and as an illustration tool, it should be a critical aspect...).
About inking very zoomed out in Designer, I agree, this used to be another issue (very similar to Photo's in that) ...Although! I am not noticing the zoomed out problem in Designer 2.4.2. Or maybe very slightly in some case (in the raw input of some diagonal line, very subtle). I mean during the raw input! Not once lifted the tip as then it does its problematic smoothing thing. The OP's 3rd point is true, indeed, as when the tip is lifted, the more zoomed out, the worst the smoothing effect is.
While in Photo it works well. For me at least, the current Photo 2.4.2 (and many previous 2.x) has not this problem while working in a 6500x5600 px canvas (for example) even if very zoomed out. I wish we had this level of accuracy in Designer. I know, it's not raster, it can't ever be the same... But Inkscape and Illustrator got it, so, I hope it is somehow doable (and I know, code bases are very different, etc).
So, about point 3., to clarify, I'd say there are two different aspects. That once lifted the tip, it smooths the lines wildly (quite more than it already does in a zoomed-in situation) when the zoom-out is significant. The second aspect, that even in "raw input", it used to smooth and/or add staircase increasingly more, the more zoomed-out the canvas is, in this raw input as well. The second aspect, I am not seeing it as very noticeable (or at all) on the current Designer 2.4.2, but the excessive smoothing once the tip is lifted, definitely yes, and absolutely that the more zoomed out, the more it happens (to bad levels). But! if we can fully disable (not possible right now) the smoothing, then I guess it would not matter, as it would not be doing it at all, maybe only a small, very slight averaging (due to being vectors), trying to be 100% accurate to our raw input, or as much as possible. I suspect improvements in that matter would help as well the people using the stabilizer ( as this feature is not able to really counter it, it happens on top of that, it seems).
It would be just a fantastic improvement for anyone doing anything (beyond basic stuff) requiring freehand line work, in Affinity Designer (again, partly an illustration app).
But IMO, it both (zoom out augmenting the problem, and the problem itself) are sort of solved with just fixing it by getting a stroke equal or as much as possible, to the raw input (before lifting the pen's tip), as I can notice that in the "raw stage", it is indeed accurate enough, now in 2.4.2, even zoomed out. Probably the reason why in Photo it is is now good.
Indeed, it is probably only one problem, that gets intensified when working zoomed out. The stabilizer on top of it can't really fix it.
This is one of the most important issues, I think (in Designer). But again, I am optimistic, judging the progress on Photo in relation to the brush engine.
-
14 hours ago, Alfred said:
Welcome to the Serif Affinity Forums, Mike.
Hardly a waste of time if it did what you needed it to do!
Not bad at all, although I have to wonder why the copyright symbol © is superscripted like that in the ITC Bradley Hand font.
<pedantry>
Flickr, not Flicker
</pedantry>Nice Strelitzia, by the way.
Good catch, Alfrd.
😛
-
-
I'm curious about this since a while... So... I'm going to finally make the question.
If you are so disappointed with the Affinity software, the team, the buyout, Canva, the community... Why not just using a suite, or separate tools from different vendors (there are a few options now, luckily it's not as spartan as we had it the 90s anymore) that you consider actually professional and a better fit ? As you would probably be happier taking that route and saving your personal time and energy, as well.
I promise! It is just curiosity. As, me, when I don't like a software because I think it's lacking key stuff and/or I just absolutely dislike it, I do the practical thing and leave it alone, to move to a solution that suits me better. I've seen some people in this same situation, through the years and in a few communities, with different tools. And it keeps me wondering... -
9 minutes ago, William Overington said:
@SrPx Your input as an artist has been very interesting.
I had been hoping that you would comment on the AI-generated picture that I posted earlier today.
William
It's interesting. Reminds me of a mosaic :).
-
3 hours ago, R C-R said:
Why would an AI have to feel anything or be self aware to create art (good or bad by whatever standards one wants to use to judge that, objective or subjective) for that work to evoke strong emotional responses in humans that view it?
Try a Google search on something like "examples of AI-generated art." Among the hits are items like this one about 'mind blowing' examples. I don't know about what others feel but for me some of them do evoke strong emotions in me very much like those I feel when viewing human-created artwork of similar subject matter.
A bit off topic but my Google search turned up a lot of interesting stuff, one of which is this "Timeline of AI Art." While none of it directly addresses if AI's can or ever will be able to feel in the same sense that humans can, much of it suggests that is not necessary for them to create artwork that evokes strong feelings in humans.
A huge lot of the beauty in that thread of images is due to the genius of many human artists (and as I am seeing in it, of both 3D artists and traditional illustrators. It is taken from both)... but this is one of the several points in which we would end up as well having to "agree to disagree".
We have a different concept of what is art (this has been debated in many forums on internet since the latest and more ground breaking arrival (as it had several) of the so called "AI", many artists are of the following opinion). Art, by definition, has the process of making art as a very essential part (it's not only a final output), the process of an actual human in every bit of this creation, as in, putting each stroke, each bit of expression. And self aware (while doing it and for the overall purpose) because they need to be conscious of their reality, to create the expression called art. Yes, with generative 'AI' there is a human writing a paragraph and pressing a button, but writing what clients used to write on a brief about how they wanted the illustrated gig to be, then hitting a button and waiting it to automatically seed, in my opinion, is not creating art (thus the reason why some judge has declared that AI art can't have copyright. But maybe money will end up bending art definitions, common sense and ethics, in future cases. It is good at doing all that).
I am not saying that what you just said is wrong. It is indeed correct to say that someone can get wowed by an automatically generated image. As can be with a sunset, your dog making a tender noise, or one's son doing something nice (but none of that is "art"). I will not go as far as to impose the definition of art to anyone (there are indeed several) although most coincide in that. But to me, having dedicated decades to making art and studying theory involved in it (not saying that I have authority for that; just that it is the obvious conclusion for me after all these years), etc, that point happens to be essential to define art (and so, artists those who do such), and then we'd get into another locked point of the debate.After which, well... I leave this thread... Very interesting debate, but I think we would start going in circles (and maybe making it even more boring for casual people clicking here, or to those who are following it)
. The majority will prefer the pretty pictures. Tends to happen with the "two sides" in this big issue, so much that I was very very very close not to answer, initially...maybe I shouldn't have (mental note for the next one). )
Please, R C-R, don't think that I am being impolite if I don't follow the thread...
-
4 hours ago, R C-R said:
I am talking about the emotions humans might feel from AI created content. it has nothing to do with what the AI can or cannot feel.
I believe he refers to the matter of the AI not feeling emotions (neither being self aware in any way) being a problem for it generating art, as, despite that fact, yet considering the "art" which AI generates better or even equal to what a human artist would create, but I could have misunderstood what he said.
-
8 hours ago, R C-R said:
But who is to say that eventually sufficiently powerful neural networks cannot through the appropriate training learn these methods & techniques & use them to create something comparable in all significant aspects to what humans can achieve?
It may not happen this year or the next but on a longer time scale it seems inevitable.
Maybe. I'm judging the current situation, only (as it is what I can only examine well: the future is not that easy to predict). Also, I doubt AI would ever have true "human experience", neither conscience, both essential for the core of real artistic expression.
Jagged Lines (with Pixel Brush) in Affinity Photo iPad (v2.4)
in V2 Bugs found on iPad
Posted
All that is very shocking indeed.
Happens even with 200% spacing (which basically is dashed lines), no freaking way spacing affects in any way here, then. But that when you increase pixel dimensions (ie, from 1920x1080px to 3000x3000px) but keeping same 75 dpi, then you notice more the problem, that demonstrates that there's indeed a difficulty in "catching up" for the app/hardware, even if as well there's another kind of problem.
The shock is partly because I have nothing of this happening on my PC (R9) neither my laptop (intel 12700h), both with the 3060, Windows 10 and 11, and having installed both v1.x and v2.x on each system, as I used to like doing that (but fully moved to 2.x now) for compatibility with old projects, until I finished them all.
I can only think of something in your specific Pencil or tablet, or a specific combination of them with Affinity. Would be interesting to know if other iPad users are having this exact problem in Photo and iPad Pro 12.9. Whether if they do or don't, also to know the exact version of Photo that they are using, and their tablets' and pencil generation. Well, you have said it happened to you with v1 and hoped to be better with v2, but it's not getting better. All with the same iPad Pro and Pencil.
It would be interesting to know if Stokerg or others in the team would be able or not to replicate it specifically with an iPad Pro 12.9", but 2020 version, like yours, and also with The Pencil version 2. As any difference in that, could end up with it not being replicated, if the incompatibility is among the 2020 version (or the pencil v2) and Affinity apps, apparently BOTH v1.x and v2.x versions of Affinity (it definitely is worth a deep look, as that's too much).
The pen works perfectly in your non Affinity apps (csp, etc), so right now I can only think of a special incompatibility or bug, driver issue, etc between the iPad Pro 12.9 2020 version + Pencil v2, and Affinity software. It's kind of by elimination, indeed.
I would not be surprised if the Affinity Team is using the most modern/recent model available, 6th or 5th generation (2022 and 2021), and then that's why they can't replicate it... (4th is your 2020 version, I believe).
The possibility of a faulty hardware still could be happening, but not being triggered/detected on CSP or other software, though sounds more of a special software app incompatibility with a specific model. Yet though, I had a Wacom pen that after some time went the way of the Dodo, as even the best electronic devices do that after very long years of full day use, had to buy a pen replacement on Amazon. But yours keeps drawing fine on other apps.
[ One VERY crazy idea would be if it happens like has happened in some cases before with some classic drawing tablets: proximity of powerful electromagnetic sources (even just electric stuff, as that can induce electromagnetic fields; but I don't believe you have a vendor machine besides you. Unhealthy as heck) can affect the tracing of a digital pen...it has been known to introduce wobble and other issues. And not every app being equally sensitive to that. A physical issue in the pen or tablet (it happens, but rarely) is less likely here when other apps are working fine. But if Affinity uses more the "gpu" part, uses the hardware differently (CSP is all about CPU), then , who knows ].
But yeah, shocked. Mostly as the experience on desktop (on my end, dunno anyone else's) is smooth as butter, just comparable to Clip Studio, Krita, etc.
Let's see if something else comes from testing in the devs' side with an specific 2020 12.9 iPad Pro model and the pencil v2... I'm out of ideas.